Steve, we your local and mostly loyal commentariat, know you well enough to appreciate (more or less) your dry sarcasm - but all kinds of people come here. You should try to project an air of genuine savvy and not insider cryptocasm. Hence, "I'm starting to get the impression that Fox News isn't a serious news outlet interested in informing the public" is confusing to many readers, since you have realized that (I am sure) for many months if not many years.

Aside from that, Fox news is not just a biased, lying outfit but a disgrace to the tradition and institution of the Press and the Media. That fact needs to be promulgated everywhere it can be, and very energetically.

Starting to get the impression that Fox isn't a serious news outlet?

I think we've known for quite a long time the ridiculousness that is Fox. ;)

Steve must be under the weather or something. Here, let me edit to give that Benen touch

There are legitimate concerns about the hate-crimes legislation, and some of the arguments are more persuasive than ...wait for it...others. But once the right starts throwing around the "soft on pedophiles" garbage, it's safe to assume the credible arguments just aren't ...wait for it...working.

As for the fact that Fox News' coverage of a legislative debate is mirroring that of a strange religious right group, I'm starting to get the impression that Fox News isn't a serious news outlet interested in informing the ...wait for it...public.

There you go.

BTW, this sort of action is a set-up by co-scheming members of Congress. We can be rather sure, that Rep. Steve King (R-IA) knew that "pedophile protection" wasn't in the bill to begin with, and worked up his measure to trap counter-votes for Fox to play up. He's a disgrace too. I want to see Democrats in Congress show the same spine they did denying Specter immediate seniority (I've been pounding on that lately). I want them to denounce such Refauxlican shenanigans for what they are, very overtly and acerbically.

When political rhetoric gives way to deception and inflamatory misnomer and then is covered straight up by a partisan "news" channel, one word covers the gamut of its worth to a democratic society - despicable! -Kevo

Faux tries to sells itself as a "fair and balanced" NEWS network. Will the FCC ever come in and slap them with a HUGE fine for misrepresentation?

Please???

This is the type of craziness that we've been seeing from the conservative movement over the last 6-12 months. They have run out of ideas. They want to oppose Barack Obama's agenda but they can't stop it without resorting to lies and deception.

As Jon Stewart explained the other night, the right wing really just wants to know who they are allowed to beat up. And if they can't, why the hell not?

Huh. That's actually an interesting argument. I guess it's true that since children are legally incapable of giving consent, all pedophilia is by definition non-consensual and would therefore not fall within the scope of the definition of "sexual orientation," but given prosecutors' infamous tendency to stretch the law as far as it will go to pile on charges, it certainly doesn't seem inconceivable that if and when some pedophile is assaulted by a member of the community, an enterprising AUSA might try to bring charges under the hate crimes law-- *particularly* if the pedophile in question preferred to victimize children only of the pedophile's own gender. Of course, such a prosecution would be made much more difficult now that there's testimony in the Congressional Record to the effect that the statute is not to be construed that way.

Ha! You don't fool me. Your admiration of Faux News is legendary. A day seldom passes without a post that sources them.

JRD - even in your bizarro world, the prosecutor would be applying all relevant statutes, which would include the local variant on sexual assault of a minor. in fact, that's the whole point of your hypothetical, ultimately.

It's an unlikely situation.

Protection for pedophiles?

I'd think Hannity would be relieved.

given prosecutors' infamous tendency to stretch the law as far as it will go to pile on charges, it certainly doesn't seem inconceivable that if and when some pedophile is assaulted by a member of the community, an enterprising AUSA might try to bring charges under the hate crimes law-- *particularly* if the pedophile in question preferred to victimize children only of the pedophile's own gender.

Let me give you a far more likely scenario: what if someone is assaulted because the perpetrator thinks the person they assaulted is a pedophile, but the perpetrator is wrong? There was an angry mob in England who got confused about the difference between "paedophile" and "paediatrician" and attacked a doctor's house. Several families were assaulted in another city when they were wrongly identified as harboring pedophiles in their families.

Given how emotional people get about it, maybe people wrongly accused of being pedophiles do need some protection from assault by strangers.

The comes from the stupid idea that homosexuals are all pedophiles.

See Joe the Not Plumber and his actual gay friends he won't let near his kids.

There are legitimate concerns about the hate-crimes legislation, and some of the arguments are more persuasive than others.

Is this supposed to be sarcasm? If not, pray tell what are those legit concerns?

"JRD - even in your bizarro world, the prosecutor would be applying all relevant statutes, which would include the local variant on sexual assault of a minor. in fact, that's the whole point of your hypothetical, ultimately. "

Yes but violating the local statute would not get one prosecuted in federal court, or subject to the onerous Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Violating the federal hate crimes statute would, so, as we see constantly in other areas where state and federal criminal law overlap, federal prosecutors may be motivated to find some federal offense with which the offender can be charged. I've seen federal prosecutors make far more implausible claims than this (see, e.g., the Lori Drew "Myspace suicide" case, which actually resulted in a conviction).

Mnemosyne has it.

Beating the crap out of someone because you think they might be a pedophile is not OK. And particularly not OK in a country where sex-obsessed loons have been tryingfor decades to, uh, cram the idea that pedophilia is a variant of homosexuality down our collective throats.

Well, considering that Limbaugh vacationed with large quantities of Viagra in The Dominican Republic, the western hemisphere's capital of child prostitution, he should be very relieved to read this.

all right, snark and sarcasm aside, the hate crimes bill could, in fact, protect pedophiles. Two examples:

1: In a moment of ill-conceived candor, someone confides to a friend or coworker that sometimes he has improper thoughts. Maybe with someone who's just on the wrong side of legal, maybe younger than that. Hasn't commtted an act against the child, just admits to having fantasies. This friend or coworker, shocked and appalled, contacts authorities, who take an interest & make their presence known. The man who confessed to the fantasies has children (albiet not the subject of the fantasy), so family services is also called into the situation. The man's wife, horrified beyond belief, leaves his ass, kids in tow, and has no reservations telling people why she left him. By this point, everyone in town has heard some elements of the story, and they think someone, who technically has committed no crime, needs to be taught a lesson. A brutal, violent, life-scarring lesson.

All right, some of you will feel that technically, a pedophile isn't a pedophile until/unless the heinous act is committed. For you pickers of nits, I give you example number...

2: Because of Meghan's Law, you've been made aware that a convicted pedophile is now living in the neighborhood. Said pedophile has gone to prison for his crime, "paid his debt to society," has been paroled and is in therapy multiple times a week to figure out why he's attracted to children and ensure he never ever acts on those thoughts again. Nonetheless, the idea of a child molestor in the neighborhood fills what are normally otherwise pillars of the community into fits of paranoid rage. Are we just gonna wait for this pervert to strike again? Or are we going to maybe introduce his junk to the sharp end of the butcher's knife? Better than he deserves if he's still breathing, am I right, huh huh huh?

You see my point.

It's still no reason to deny protection to everyone from being persecuted for that which is beyond their control, be it the color of their skin or the gender of their attraction. But right-wingers are not necessarily wrong to say pedophiles will enjoy a level of protection under the revision of the bill, and we do our side a disservice to not acknowledge that fact. Yeah, people acused of the ACT of pedophilia will (or should) get their day in court, and my bleeding heart will show no pity for them if they are guilty. But my two examples, I think, show how it's wrong to point blank say the right wingers are wrong or lieing.

The neo-fascist wing of the wingnut clan has been in a major lather about hate crime legislation and gee, I wonder why.

Here's a perfect example, posted (surprise again) on a white supremacist neo nazi site called the Supreme White Alliance. The Right Reverend Ted Ryan will give you a good nine minute lesson on "How to defeat the Hate Bill."

http://swa43.com/drupal/?q=node/57

Actually it's "Not Joe the not Plumber"

Manicheanism seems to be a systemic quality of today's right ring/Republicans/wing nuts. No matter how silly it seems, believe the worst about your oponents and the best about your own motives. What a bunch of self-deluded fools.

Texas has a hate crimes statute that includes sexual orientation.

We passed in 2001.

Not a single Republican who voted for it lost in a primary the next election, the next election or the next election.

Only one has lost a primary -- in 2008 -- and it wasn't on that issue.

In other words, this is just stupid on the part of the national conservatives, but that's about par for the course right now.

When I worked for the Massachusetts Republican Party just prior to the string of gubernatorial victories it achieved in the 1990s, the GOP had not won a statewide race in a generation and could claim only about 14% of registered voters. After working with them for a few months I came to the conclusion that for a great many of their leaders, they liked it this way. Big fish in a small pool has its advantages.

People join a political party or become active in a political movement for a variety of reasons and not all of them are connected with actually winning elections. That is the dilemma facing serious Republicans who want to turn the party's fortunes around. Rush Limbaugh has doubled his audience, and so has FOX. They are certainly not interested in finding another demographic to cater to. With most moderates and liberals gone from the party the remaining right wingers have an even bigger voice. What's not to like? It's time we started recognizing that what may appear to us suicidal behavior by the remaining reactionary Southern rump of the GOP that seems intent on digging its hole even deeper, winning elections again in areas outside the bright red South may actually be the last thing on their minds.

Was Congressman King hoping to provide legal assistance to pedophiles?

By writing this "clarification", all existing state hate crime laws that lacked it could be interpreted by pedohiles' defense lawyers as including their clients in its scope.

I understand Republicans like state rights a whole lot but isn't it going a little bit too far to say some states should be allowed to bestow "special rights" on pedophiles if they want to?

Maybe the Republican party IS ditching "family values". In spades.

It never occurred to Democrats that states would want to make pedophilia legal. King appears to want to create some wiggle room.

paul, slappy, et al.,

I think part of what's being said here goes to what I imagine Steve was getting at in his reference to the legitimate concerns about hate-crimes legislation. It's important to remember that, under the law as it exists right now, pedophiles are protected from violent assault to the same degree as anyone else. If you kill a pedophile, you'll be charged with homicide and go to jail for a long time. Hate crimes legislation, by its nature, adds another layer of punishment on top of that provided by the existing criminal law solely on the basis of the attacker's motivation. I think the conservatives are right that by its nature such legislation essentially punishes though alone-- whether that's legitimate as a general matter is an interesting policy question. But it's important to remember here that even without a hate crime law, pedophiles (or perceived pedophiles) are legally protected against violent assault; I'm not really persuaded by anything that's been said here that, even if hate crime legislation is legitimate for the purposes of deterring attacks based on racial, ethnic, sexual orientation (in the narrow sense), etc., bias, that that additional layer of protection should likewise be extended to pedophiles.

There really should be a concerted effort to neuter/ nullify Fox Noise.

I daydream of Obama buying an hour on the network (how else could he get on?) and commenting on a MediaMatters PowerPoint presentation then moderating a panel that included Keith Olbermann.

Perhaps the FCC should require MSNBC to post an hour of ins-Hannity and Fox to mirror an hour of Rachel. I'll bet that would raise ratings as well as ire.